Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Google There's a bit of a story going on between Google, Acer, and Alibaba, a Chinese mobile operating system vendor. Acer wanted to ship a device with Alibaba's operating system, but Google asked them not to, and Acer complied. The reason is that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which prohibits the promotion of non-standard Android implementations - exactly what Alibaba is shipping. On top of that, Alibaba's application store hosts pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
Thread beginning with comment 535511
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kovacm
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kovacm"
cdude
Member since:
2008-09-21

1. It did not run the compatibility tests. Google has a bigger collection of automated tests to target application compatibility. Every Android fork needs to pass those tests.
2. Aliyun sourcecode was not provided. That means all necessary changes Alibaba did (minus propitary stuff like there cloud integration) including hardware drivers and patches need to be given back to Android. This is the base for 3th part mods like cyanogen and for proper auditing, validation, reconstruction and future enhanced application compatibility testing.

This is for OHA members. Anyone can take the Android code everytime and not follow that requirements. But then they a) cannot be in the OHA and b) are ranged as incompatible.

Also when Alibaba says that they did heavy changes within Android so its not Android any longer then that opens some more questions like where in Android got the changes done? Unlike common believe Opensource does not mean you can do everything without giving back and compared to common believe most or at least lot of Android is not APL. Alibaba would be required to open any changes done in certain areas or they lose there right to use them. Compare to what google brings on the table the license-issue is serious and legally binding.

Edited 2012-09-17 21:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 21:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

AGAIN, this is you taking Google at their word. OHA has to comply with compatibility testing when submitting something they intend to be called Android. There is ZERO evidence that OHA members cannot work on competing OSSes that utilize code that's a part of Android or non-Android code that emulates it. In fact, there are TWO HUGE GLARING examples of just the opposite being true.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by cdude on Tue 18th Sep 2012 07:56 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

AGAIN, this is you taking Google at their word.


The OHA terms are public since years and indirect linked in the article.

OHA has to comply with compatibility testing when submitting something they intend to be called Android.


Correct but only half of the story. See the comment you replied too.

There is ZERO evidence that OHA members cannot work on competing OSSes that utilize code that's a part of Android or non-Android code that emulates it.


There are actually lots of evidences this is fine including Google itself naming Samsung as example of a OHA member who does with WP, Bada and Tizen competing OSes.

Please read the article and linked sources. The issue is about Android and Android forks. The OHA is only about Android and not about whatever competing other OS.

For your "googles view" point: Alibaba itself wrote its a Linux with opensource. That means they are legally forced to open the source-code. GPL and stuff you know. Why did they not? This is yet another violation not named but important cause if they would everybody could validate there statement. As it looks right now Alibaba does:
* Violate various opensource licenses.
* Does pirate propitary google software
* Does drag there ex-partner Acer into a public dirt battle.
* Fails to give just any proof.

Yes, I believe google more then Alibaba in the current situation but would be fine to switch my opinion if Alibaba gives proof and may it only by following the licenses of the opensource they use what would enable anyone to verify themselfs.

Edited 2012-09-18 08:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2